Concurrently alongside she uses an analogy example from the natural world, “if she can jump like a gazelle, which is signaling strength, but it communicates to would-be predators.” Which sound misunderstanding for me. When I read this example, I first thought of an American, it sounds like just because I am here, does not signify that I am an American. Essentially I think she is trying to indirectly signify is size create an amount of power? It seems to be directly proportional, however, it doesn’t matter. Even though we have an abundance people but if we did nothing, the result should be nothing neither. The point is what are we value for and how do we do in order to preserve that value, do not counting on the number of people. In this case …show more content…
In the past, a big demonstration required months, if not years of preparation.” These two connect sentences show that in the past, we spent more time and effort in order to protest effectively. But nowadays, it is much easier to pull off a large protest than it used to be. Which indirectly tell us that today, we are careless, indolent, and slothful. What did we do in the past was honorably and effectively. Then she says “The planning for the march on Washington in August 1963, for example, start nine months earlier, in December 1962(As a result of protest was more visible)”. Think about the art illustration that cost more than a million dollar, for example, the last meal, illustrate by Leonardo Da Vinci. Why does it cost that much? Is it worthless? The answer is because he was famous and when he drew, he was giving an effort and feeling. Which make the illustration lively and valuable. Additionally, there is a simple rule for economist which state a very simple trade, good quantity expect high price because it is rare and valuable. As you could see the consequence is directly proportional to an